instead of wasting time on blaming each other,both countries should resolve their issues as soon as they can.
china has already risen and also have a good potential to keep up tha pace.
whereas India is a Rising Star and we indians instead of crying on 1962 war should focus on our country's growth.
As an individual i think Aksaichin should be given to China as it is stratigically important for them as it links Tibet to Xingxiang.
And China should stop claiming on Arunachal Pradesh because of its stratigical importance for India.
if this happens both of our nation would be the most prosperous nation of the world.
LONGLIVE INDIA LONGLIVE CHINA

Most of the tibetans would love independence. Staying with India? -- put it to poll. It would be a stretch to say they would prefer to stay in India. Most of them are living in pathetic conditions in India.

The world’s longest demilitarised border is between Canada and the U.S. It is also the least controversial, and should set an example to countries around the world with shorter lines of link to their neighbours. This 5,500 miles long border between the two North American nations, barring some patches of non-existent demarcation, is under watchful eyes for contraband crossings, though. What does this go to tell countries embroiled in perpetual territorial and maritime boundary disputes?

That it is better to live secured within recognized borders, than to be nudged by unfriendly neighbours due to unsettled boundaries between them. Recent controversies over hoisting the national flag on India’s national day, in places dogged by unsettled disputes; or being humbled by stapled visas for China, does not bode well for a country that should have been breathing free after six decades of freedom. National boundaries are after all, manifestations of national values, and conflict of values can best be resolved by neutral arbitration, if bilateral negotiations fail to reach mutually acceptable conclusions.

Most of these festering problems could be ascribed to Britain’s geo-political hegemony during its colonial era, and the privileges assigned to it for separation of one country from the other, after the sun stopped shining over their colonial empire. Ethnicity, religion, culture and natural resources were the factors that bore major considerations in drawing those dividing lines.

The Indian sub-continent is a glaring example, which has put India in perpetual conflict with three of its neighbours namely, China, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and to a lesser degree with Nepal.
The India-China dispute is over an area of 5,180 km2 to the east of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, ceded by Pakistan to China in 1963, and a territory further east in Ladhak (38,000 Km2) but controlled by China and known as Aksai Chin. Another one is over the north- eastern Indian State of Arunachal Pradesh (90,000 km2) that is almost entirely claimed by China as part of its Tibetan territory. Furthermore, a small area on the Nepalese border along the river Sarda which is now under Indian control also has China’s claim on it.
China had annexed Tibet in 1950, claiming it to be an integral part of Peoples Republic of China (PRC). In light of that, India’s hosting of the Dalai Lama and of a number of Tibetan refugees in India, is considered by China as detrimental to their bilateral relations. As a matter of fact, China’s expansionist ambitions do not even spare Sikkim, an independent kingdom which was incorporated into India in 1975.

how could people think compare India with China? before you respond you better go visit these two countries and you will find how to stupid enough to have clue why they need compare? my only answer: the gap between US and China is shrinking...India and China not even close on 99% economy factor.

Tibetans are over-generous with their gratitude to their Indian hosts and are hesitant in reminding India of a small inconvenient truth: until 1951, the disputed border regions, Arurachal Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand, were neither Chinese nor Indian but Tibetan. Dalai Lama should ask Indian to give those historical Tibetan lands back and re-establish his theocratic serf kingdom again on those historical Tibetan lands.

All these wars are such a waste and are mostly fought on egos of leaders who we choose or self declared and then they fore their opinion on people. A person from a southern village in India has never met a Chinese person but as read plenty of stereotype about him so has a opinion and a very strong one that too and the same story on Chinese side.

If every leader as they claim are such big believers in humanity as one race then why don't they ignore these sibling rivalries.

I have been to China and people have been nice or nasty a any other place but they do start responding differently when you tell them you are an Indian and my experience in our country has been no different. Prejudices and ignorance keep us united for the benefit of pseudo democratic or communist governments.

Disclaimer: I admit being from privileged background i have the luxury of free thinking and don't derive my identity from association with religious/cultural groups and by no means i am looking down upon anybody. I know that people from similar backgrounds are either holidaying in south of France and don't care and rest who are writing blogs or columns are not of any critical mass worthy of any government's attention.

After blatantly invaded and robbed land from the poor Philippines'; the whole world spitted in their face.

What the fake communist, China illegitimate party bosses do?: Running around, stir the mud, beat up the bush, kick up the dust; try to divert people attention, away from the poor Filipinos victims.

Japan, India! just sit tight, enjoy your tea. After realizing people know their trick and pay no attention, China 'leaders' will fold their tent and hide in the shade.

Believe me, the pigs know with the arsenal of nuclear weapons, India will incinerate them!

China is the master in fighting the little, defenseless, poor countries.

For seventy years, they huff, puff, air-fight the little Taiwan island; yet they have no ball to attack the tiny Taiwan.]

Tell that to the Champas, Citizen Kane:

{"For quite a very long time, the world leaders have forgot Champa, and no ordinary people know anything about what has happened to Champa. By virtues of modern technologies, the history of the fallen Champa is now being revealed in the media networks and has attached worldwide attentions. The Champa’s history is the worst of all the world histories. The Champa’s enemy destroyed the whole country and everything it contained, massacred all its population, annihilated all its indigenous
races and wiped out all the country’s boundaries. The Champa’s declared enemy is the north Vietnam, the Champa’s country is the so called central and South Vietnam and the Champa’s population and indigenous races are the Cham, Jarai, Radhe, Chru, Koho, Mnong Maa, Bahnar, Sedang, Cham Hroi and Stieng...Etc. The North Vietnam conquered the entire Champa’s territories and committed genocides on its whole population in order to expand land from North-Viet to south-Viet. The so-called central-Viet and south-Viet did not exist before the first half of 18th century. There is nothing left for the Champa’s survivors now but the conquered country itself which is absolutely priceless. The total number of the Champa’s living people today is estimated 1.5 million half of which live in Cambodia."

I've told many times that you shouldn't tell lies about and modify the history of my country.

Can you tell me what's a genocide? Can you give me facts or headcounts about how many were killed so that you can come to the conclusion that our ancestors committed genocide? You can't simply say that it was a genocide without facts and figures to back your argument.

The people of indigenous races such as Cham, Jarai, Radhe, Chru, Koho, Mnong Maa, Bahnar, Sedang, Cham Hroi and Stieng...Etc are all still living there on their land, so I wonder why you say that our ancestors "massacred all its population"?

Che Man - the King of Champa - was killed when he intruded and attacked the Thang Long Citidal of Vietnam. After King Che Man being killed, Champa collapsed and surrendered. Our ancestors didn't even kill family members of the King Che Man, instead our ancestors brought them to Dong Anh District outskirt of the Thang Long Citidal where they could live beside the King family of Vietnam...

Stop modifying the history of my country, based on a fake historical document. It's baseless, non-sense and absurd.

It does not surprise me that many Indians borned years after the border war which has almost no civilian deaths are still holding a grunge, for Indians it seems war can be won by salivar.

It does not matter what this Banyan guy says (is he as legit as Maxwell?), go check out Amazon books, American records of the war, wikipedia, etc. The cause of the war was border dispute and Nehru's forward policy. What do you gain from making a battle for who invaded who? Chinese forces not only recaptured the territories lost to the India advances with the forward policy, but invaded into India and were threatoning Delhi, that is history.

So there you have it, war provoked by the Forward policy (you don't call it invasion eh?), which was result of the Sino-India dispute.

I bet that most Chinese does not even know or care about the war, while Indians whines on, I don't see what is to be gain from this, another war or what? At least don't tell me China is the aggressor if you keep fixate on the matter. Just look at what each side has done after the war, China keeps the bordering terroritories vacant, Hindus flooded Arunachal Pradesh and is now the dominant group. Both sides should shut up and give the land in dispute back to Tibeto-Burm aboriginals, we shall see who is the aggressor.

OF course, who is laughing to the end: it is the Indian. They had invented the war and they have achieved peace for 50 years in the Chinese border. It does not matter if China won the war They had lost the land which was rightly theirs in the beginning. For three thousands lives, the Indian gained the territories for the descendants. China can say they won the war, but they lost the land. The smart people are the Indian. China... you can have the morality but no land and resources. For Indian, it was easy. Who is laughing to the end?

The Indian have memoirs of the soldiers who died to gain the land from victory Chinese. Of course there is no celebration of the Indians who lost their life. For the Indian, they had a grudge against the Chinese because the Chinese did not surrender the land but cost 3 thousands Indian lifes. Chinese can have its victory but Indian keeps the land. Chinese victory? What had the Chinese won?

Yes, the Chinese have the empty word of "victory". but no land. The Indian is laughing by presenting a griefing "look". The Indian is the smart one. The Chinese can celebrate its empty "victory" for eternity to come. Why does the Indian deploying more soldiers to the border, because they want to do the same thing again and again. More land, and more land...

Looks like Tawang could be a spectacular back country ski destination. The images at the start of the video reminds me of groomed ski runs (albeit sort of in a horizontal, easy drop sort of way). What if one could ski all the way from the China side to the Indian side. That would be out of this world. I know, I know, you people out there would rather tell me how Chinese or Indian border guards would shoot to kill even skiers...

The Indian's have generally bulldozed their will over the objections of their neighbors. With the Chinese, they will have to get to know their place. They have had one lesson. But they are slow to learn.

Modern Nation states are beyond race and religion. Think of mtDNA as the the founding building block of the concept that as humans we are all related to each other via those few Homo Sapiens who walked out of Ethiopia/Yemen some time around 50 to 40000 years ago. Most of Persia, Chinese Mainland and Indian subcontinent had become populated by around 8000 years ago. Thus to argue that we are separate people because we look different is a load of bullshit which is being fed by propagandists who wish to use nationalism for their own pecuniary gains.

The conflict of 1962 is essentially a story of internal politics of CPC which thus allowed CPC in general and Mao in particular to reign in fissiparous tendencies against cultural revolution that had been unleashed in mainland China which essentially lead to millions of death due to famines.

With a view which inculcates the idea that we are all related to each other ( vasudev kutumbakam); India has tried to be a Humane society and the providing refuge to Dalai Lama has been just one aspect of that decision. I believe this angers the Chinese population but if they had a better understanding of the human history, that anger would stand neutralized.

The primary purpose of twenty first century nation state is to better the lot of its citizenry by deploying the tax collected from its citizens for the most important issues of the society.

India has to travel a long road on becoming a truly modern nation state which would care for all its citizens. India does not covet lands of its neighbors. India wishes to maintain status quo along all its borders. Yet the primary function of modern nation state is defined by Hobbes ( security of its citizens) and as a result India is still being forced to spend billions upon billions of dollars on armaments.

I believe most Indians are busy trying to better their lot. They do not wish to get involved in show of supra nationalistic tendencies. They would more than remain happy with no changes to any boundaries.

Freezing the boundary issue for next 100 years seems a sensible solution to me. In the meanwhile, India would like to focus on eradicating poverty amidst its own.

Devils Advocate
Humans started harvesting grains from grass around 14000 years ago in an area which is known to humans now as modern day Turkey/Georgia border. Ever since that time, humans began to settle into pastoral communities and as a result got attached to land – leading to the rise of the concept of earth as motherland. ( some cultures have also termed it as fatherland).
This further led to consolidation of the principle of demarcation of land and modern day boundaries of modern day nation states.
Chinese authorities published a map in 1917 which indicated large areas of Aksai Chin and beyond as British India ( as also modern day Arunachal Pradesh). Attached below is the link to the same map.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Postal_Map_of_China_,1917.jpg
Since New Delhi (India) is the successor state to British India, It inherited those boundary lines. There are certain disputes as to how the conflict of 1962 came about ( was it Nehru’s Forward policy, V K Menon’s left leaning intellectual rhetoric which was in no way connected to ground realities or the internal politics in the court of Mao Zedong – all of it is now a matter of conjecture).
However, I have no power of making the present day LAC as the actual international border but I can sway some amount of public opinion via the net and that is what I am trying to do.
When I request that we keep the issue frozen for another 100 years, I am hoping that technology / society would have advanced to such an extent that it would make the adherence to the traditional notions of modern nation states slightly more tenuous and superfluous.
In future human society would become less dependent on land for food – most food would be cultivated in laboratories (including meat). Solar energy would be a source of perennial power. Nitrogen and Carbon Dioxide capture ( Amine and SAMMS- amine-functionalized granular version of self-assembled monolayers on mesoporous supports (SAMMS) technology) from atmosphere would lead to harnessing these elements from air. Both these can then be sources of power – in case of CO2 capture you would also need Hydrogen plants which can then be used to produce methanol and fuel. Provided below are links to the technologyhttp://www.rdmag.com/award-winners/2012/08/cleaner-reliable-carbon-dioxi...http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2012/10/nitrogen-cycle?spc=scode&...
In such a futuristic scenario, the need to prove superiority by acquiring more land for each society would diminish and it would be far easier to solve the problem.

If the British ruled a region, even vaguely, that region is ours, say the sucessor states of the British Raj. If the Manchus ruled a region, even vaguely, that region is ours, says China. That is the plight of Tibet, Taiwan and Kashmir, they should freely decide whether they want to belong to another country or to become/remain independent.

In the case of the successor states of the British Raj that is India, the British Raj didn't even rule the region what is today referred to by India as Arunachal Pradesh. When India gain independence from the British Raj in August 1947, the place was still directly administrated from Lhasa. It was not until 1951 that India invaded and annexed the region.

Same for Sikkim. Sikkim was a protectorate of the British Raj but the British Raj left it alone and didn't 'absorb' it into the colony. It was not until 1975 that India invaded and annexed it.

What you are trying to say, if I venture a guess, is to say that the Tibetans are so oppressed, so dehumanized to the point that they have no way out but to self-immolated. Actually in a perverted way it proves the opposite. The fact that these Tibetans self-immolated proves that the Tibetan population are not oppressed. We can take an empirical look at the world wide case of self immolation to see whether we can draw some conclusions.

The Arab Spring was started by the self-immolation of a trader in Tunisia protesting at his economic situation and police corruption and brutality, and there were multiple further self-immolations in the Arab countries as the protests gathered pace. In the 90s, the band Rage Against The Machine used the 1960s image of a Vietnamese monk's self-immolation as the cover of their eponymous album, making it a very well known image, in the West at least. Here are some cut-and-paste examples from the Wikipedia:

"..In the six months immediately after Mohamed Bouazizi's death, at least 107 Tunisians self-immolated. On July 14, 2012, during a rally in Tel-Aviv, Israeli citizen Moshe Silman set himself on fire in protest against the Israeli government's welfare policy which was, in his words, "constantly humiliating the citizens of Israel who have to endure humiliation on a day-to-day basis." On July 20, disabled IDF veteran Akiva Mafi set himself on fire in Yehud, Israel, in protest of social injustice On July 30, 2012, Vietnamese citizen Dang Thi Kim Lieng self-immolated before a government building in Bac Lieu province in protest of the detention of her daughter Ta Phong Tan, a dissident blogger.."

If we can find a common thread in all these case, it is that none of these involves an oppressed class versus the oppress authority. That is, people who do self-immolation (or self-mutilation for that matter) are not oppressed. Vietnamese monks are certainly not an oppressed class. In fact, like monks in all Asian countries, Vietnamese monks are generally respected in their country. Likewise, the Tunisian that self-immolated that sparked the Arab Springs are not from an oppressed community either.And the two Israelis that self-immolated are definitely not from an oppressed community. Moshe is a Jewish name, and the other in the IDF is definitely Jewish. Jews in Israel are not oppressed.

On the other hand, people who clearly are oppressed never self-immolated or self-mutilated. Slaves were severly oppressed in old America, but there is no known case of slaves self multilating to protest against lynching. Palestanians are clearly oppressed by Israel but you never heard of self-multilation of Palestanians. Likewise there is no known case of black South Africans self-mutilating to protest against Apartheid. It is not uncommon to read of Dalits being doused with gasoline and set on fire in India. But you never heard of Dalits dousing gasoline on themselves to protest against Caste oppression. Dalits are clearly oppressed in India. In all these self-immolation cases, the reason behind can be protesting against government policy, against social injustice or against personal injustice. In the case of the Tibetans, it is almost always against the government policy of not allowing the return of the Dalai Lama.

So remember, people who self-immolated are not oppressed and oppressed people don't self-immolated.

Hey FnF.. All this while I thought the UK was a free, democratic country and all. Guess not. Haven't heard of a Britisher self-immolating in protest in the last few decades! Surest sign of oppression, that! What do you say?
..

It is clear that governments of both the countries are no angels and there is deep mistrust built over five decades between the two sides. Territorial expansion and empire building have been going on India and China for millennia, and it should not surprise anyone that the rulers (or the State, in whatever form) continued with those ambitions. If one carefully looks at the scars of history, however, in the balance, China comes off as a delusional paranoid and childish State (this has nothing to do with Chinese culture or Chinese peoples but everything to do with the Communist Regime). That lies at the crux of the India-China Border issue, China's claims over Tibet, and China's posturing in the world.

China squabbles with almost every country in East and Southeast Asia on some or the other issue, including small pieces of rock. To date, State-sponsored Chinese "Historians" cannot stop insulting the Koreans about the Kogoryo Kingdom in the North. In Taiwan, Chinese imperialism of centuries has left the aborigines without a compass.There is a reason why the Chinese insist on Mainland China, and that unnerves the millions in Asia-pacific who are not of Chinese ethnicity. China has to learn the meaning of dignity, composure, generosity and statesmanship, and also realize that respect is commanded not demanded. Unfortunately, the patriot bloggers who continue to proliferate do not seem to realize that they are brainwashed into bellicose patriotism and that they lack an objective view of the world. Right now, the Chinese government's behavior is more reminiscent of the school bully who used to take that sweet from your lunch boxes saying "This is mine, this is also mine..."

You only view us as the bully, because India is weak. That our race dominate, and enslave your people from the turkic, to the mongols. You are afraid, but the Chinese have no interest in making Indians Chinese. We don 't want you to be Chinese.

Ofcourse not: Chinese have no interest in making Indian Chinese. Ofcourse YES: The Chinese have an interest in making the Indian land (Akasi Chin, Tibet to Tawang) minus the people, Chinese. Ofcourse, thats a problem to any human - that they throw the human & take away the land as though its a pizza.

This commentator is your ususal Washinggton-paid sockpuppet trying to give himself a veneer of respectability by trying to write in a reasonable way but it is clear BS is still BS, or in the case of sockpuppets, outright lies. Damn you Obama. Stop the funding of these hate campaigners.

This is an intelligently worded and argued statement. It's always disappointing to me to see how the Chinese remain so passionately devoted to their country to the extent that they must hate those who are not "Chinese." Chinese people have great potential to be diplomatic and understanding, and to succeed even further than they have economically so far. I love Chinese people, but I hate what the CCP regime has done to them. Fun fact: The Chinese GDP (as defined today) in the 17th century was greater than the GDP of the rest of the world combined. The REAL Chinese way is impressive and respect-worthy. Whatever the government in China today calls itself (in terms of the political spectrum), however, is a recipe for disaster.

LOL.... If it is up to west, they would hope for China to remain poor, and unemployed completely. That all Chinese industries are destroy, massive unemployment. Of course, You want Chinese to be like another Japan. The savings of Chinese will go to west, while the industries remained complete dominated by the west. Also, you don 't mind insulting my women, and using them for sex. How nice. As long as CHinese remain weak, Chinese provide their hard earned money, and easy women, the world is happy. I have a problem with that.

I'm not sure if you're joking or if you're just stupendously misinformed. Japan has made incredible technological progress and remains one of the greatest economies in the world. I try to question Eurocentrism when I can, and who said anything about "your" women??? Not only do I think that women aren't "anybody's," but none of what you're saying in this regard is REMOTELY valid. Please try to think about your responses logically and ground them in facts.

India is weak & meek. They have a age old civilazation claiming to be above all other civilaztions and have mastered astronomy / science / medicine.
Yet this people, then - never ventured the oceans to sell their produce (Spices / Silk) beacause they were NOT brave, they were NOT brave to face the Moguals and then the British, who ruled their land.
- strange it may seem, its the British who created "INDIA" for them or there would be 10,000 republiks in Thug Republik.

Chinese gave back Arnuachel to India and on their retreat told the Indians "PLA does not fight cowards".

India had called for help for the US, they were going to bomb the Chinese troops if our comrades didn't pull out, the logistic for supporting the troops there was quite difficult, the Indians are quite silly, they are still crying tons of tears over the 1962 war as if it's the biggest humiliation on their 5000 years of history, unbelievable.

They were defeated in the battle. But other than the 4,000+ casualties (which is quite minuscle compared with any other battles incurred by any major powers), India didn't suffer any other losses. The line of control is still more or less at the same line like that of pre-1962.

China also came to a border war with USSR in 1969. Chinese forces were routed. But China settled with Russia on the border afterwards.

India has to learn to get over an incident that happened 50 years ago.

And it is not difficult to see how the US - itself the product of European overseas expansion and settlement - inherited these characteristics from us.

China won't be like this. It is not in its DNA. Its rulers will be far less interested in seeking to dominate the rest of the world and far more concerned with keeping themselves in power. That is what ruling a country containing a fifth of the world's population obliges. When Xi Jinping becomes Chinese leader next month, his in-tray, as with Hu Jintao before him, will be overwhelmingly filled with domestic rather than foreign issues.

In time China will certainly come to enjoy huge global power. It will be exercised, however, in a rather different way.

The iconic form of western power has been military. Extraordinarily, the US today accounts for around half of global defence expenditure. Before, European colonial expansion was only possible because its fighting capacity was massively superior to that of the rest of the world.
Continue reading the main story
See also in the Magazine
china composite

"Chinese history can be read as a series of peasant rebellions. One in the 19th Century, led by a man who thought he was Christ's brother, lasted 15 years and caused at least 10 million deaths."

Read more about Hong Xiuquan from Carrie Gracie and about great Chinese figures by following the links below

That kind of overweening military power has never really been a Chinese characteristic.

The writer is one of those unemployed Communist looking to butter up to China. China does not grow to large by, by knocking on someone's door, and asking them, please may I have your land. And the people happily give it away. It does not work that way. Most of the conquered people don't have a history to counter the Chinese narrative, the exception being the Vietnamese. Anyone stupid and silly enough to believe in such nonsense needs to get their head checked.

What he does not understand is China lives in a nasty neighborhood, and secondly China is not as dominant, and most likely never be as dominant as she once was. There will be conflict as long as Chinese think like they are in 15th century, and Westerners like Martin Jacque pander to those sensibilities.

Its not a question of being Imperialistic. Yes Australia is more imperialistic. It wants to dominate the South Pacific, but there is not much those countries in the south Pacific can do. Being Imperialistic does not necessarily being more warlike. Its like Prussia throughout the 18th century, it started wars with numerous countries, on the pretext of German unification.

China, even if it seeks to establish a defensive buffer(s), is less Imperialistic. But the questions is whether there is likely to be conflict. China's efforts to establish a defensive buffer in the South China Seas is much more likely to lead to conflict than Australian Imperialism in South Pacific. Who is going to challenge Australia over Fuji?

"The writer is one of those unemployed Communist looking to butter up to China."

I find many of your posts recently are quite nasty, he's a commie and unemployed? most like you are a commie (ex-commie in fact) and unemployed then you have tons of time to bash anyone who said some less nasty things about China, but then I think you are right about "China lives in a nasty neighborhood", a minor conflict like that of 1962 between China and India is good, after all after that we have had decades of peace since, the Indians have stopped to bother us since then. ;)

then he's pl123, hmmm, looks like him, but perhaps he's not banned, he's just changed his name, after all wolfgang is much better than pl which is not meaningful, i will get my name next time that's catgang, ie the gang of cats in China, the greatest cats on earth ever! lol

[Bismarck888in reply to Devils 21st, 09:34
The writer is one of those unemployed Communist looking to butter up to China.]

Then, Bis must an old Chindian lackey looking to butter up to Uncle.

[ China does not grow to large by, by knocking on someone's door, and asking them, please may I have your land. And the people happily give it away. It does not work that way. Most of the conquered people don't have a history to counter the Chinese narrative, the exception being the Vietnamese.]

Most of the incorporated peoples don't have the right to complain against Han China-- They were incorporated by the Principle of Reciprocity. That is completely different from the whites who purely land-grabbed by the continents.

[ Anyone stupid and silly enough to believe in such nonsense needs to get their head checked.]

You are the one who should have his heat checked. What that guys says are historical facts.

[What he does not understand is China lives in a nasty neighborhood,]

What YOU don't understand is that China has always been living in a nasty neighbourhood right from the start of Chinese history itself-- Of people and of nature.

[ and secondly China is not as dominant, and most likely never be as dominant as she once was.]

If you have read that article carefully, China have NEVER been "as dominant" in the same way as the white West. China's past dominance was largely as a result of voluntary following of the tributary states themselves.

[ There will be conflict as long as Chinese think like they are in 15th century, and Westerners like Martin Jacque pander to those sensibilities.]

That was what happened in the 19th and early 20th centuries but NOT becasue China thought it was the 15th Century. The imperialist West, Russia and Japan have invaded because China was too weak to defend itself.

But this is the 21st Century and the white West, and Bis, still want it to be the 19th Century.

Look at the map of Japan in 1644m and the map of China in 1644, now look at the map of Japan in 1911. What do you see? You and the author needed to get a pair of glasses.

Even if you exclude Xinjiang and Tibet, the Qing Empire added Outer Mongolia and parts of Manchuria. If you add Xinjaing and Tibet, Qing tripled the size of China compared to what happened in the Ming.

Actually I read his silly book, and not just the article. If you believe its voluntary, you are delusional. You have been drinking the Chinese koolaid. The point is this, the cost of not following is invasion. Further away they were ie places like Japan, Java they just ignored the Chinese. Read the histories Majaphait Empre and Japanese history.

Chinese (and India's) also comes down to one thing population and being in control of major river systems. Improvements in agriculture and new crops allowed Island states like England, Philippines, Indonesia, Japan to support populations far larger than in the past. In 1500 Indonesia's population was 6 Million, China, was 180 Million. Now Indonesia's population is 230 Million, China's is 1.3 Million. Philippines was only 1 Million, now its 100 Million. England population was 3-4 Million, vs 15 Million for France, now its 45 vs 60 Million.

That is what I am talking about when I talk about dominance. The population of the rest of Asia, outside of India/China now is about 800 Million (excluding Pakistan and Bangladesh). The GDP of the rest of Asia now is greater than the GDP of India and China combined. The population of the rest of Asia during the 1500 was only 1/4 that of China, and ts combined GDP was only 1/8.

Sadly most of our Indian/Chinese posters don't realize this fact. Its sad that teachers (even in the West) mention population figures when they are teaching history. Both Indians and the Chinese have a 15th century view of the rest of Asia.

Basically I don;'t trust both the smelly Indians and the Chinese. Both are aggressive powers. The Hindoo Indians want to conquer (by force or other means) the rest of South Asia. The Chinese hav a big fat chip oin their shoulders, and you have the biggest chip of them all, with your white devil and white bastard talk. China is using aggressive tactics to setup a buffer zone to prevent future attacks from the sea. And she will stop at nothing to achieve those aims.

"China does not grow to large by, by knocking on someone's door, and asking them, please may I have your land. And the people happily give it away. It does not work that way."

I have to disagree.

In the past 10 years, that is precisely the way China dealed with Russia, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan on the border dispute issue. But of course, China settled with much less of what it claimed -- it got back about 5-35% of what it claimed.

I don't see those governments are unhappy about the settlements albeit some residents grumbled about it.

Look at the map of Japan in 1644m and the map of China in 1644, now look at the map of Japan in 1911. What do you see? You and the author needed to get a pair of glasses. ]

Look at the map of Europe before their colonisation and expansion, and compare with the continents dominated by the whites today and tell us what do you see. You need to wear a pair of very large glasses.

[Even if you exclude Xinjiang and Tibet, the Qing Empire added Outer Mongolia and parts of Manchuria. If you add Xinjaing and Tibet, Qing tripled the size of China compared to what happened in the Ming. ]

Both the Mongols and Manchus totally conquered Han China and subjected Han China to their rule. If they could rule Han China, Han China can rule over them by the Principle of Reciprocity. The Tibetan had also invaded Han China and sacked Changan. That gives Han China a right to reciprocate.

Give me any evidence that the "Indians" of the Americas or the "Aborigines" of Australia, etc had invaded Europe, which might be used to justify the whites' domination of these lands that do NOT belong to them.

[Actually I read his silly book, and not just the article. If you believe its voluntary, you are delusional. You have been drinking the Chinese koolaid. The point is this, the cost of not following is invasion.]

I have read your "silly" posts on the TE forums. Go back and count the number of them I have ridiculed.

Yes, China invaded some of these countries. In particular Vietnam where its invasion was repulsed. Yet, more than another other tributary states, Vietnam was/is more like China than the others. How could China have imposed its will on Vietnam by force if it could not even defeat it on the battlefield? I believe when China fought in Korea, it was mostly fighting on behalf of the Koreans against the Japanese instead of for the conquest of Korea itself.

And the Ryukyus, I have never read about any invasions by the Chinese of that tributary state. As for the South Seas and beyond, some battles were fought, tributes taken, gifts exchanged and that was about it. But then YOU are the expert, I am not. If you have any evidences of China establishing prolong colonial administrations in these regions like the British had in India or colonial occupations like those in the Americas, Australia, etc, pls let me have it.

[ Further away they were ie places like Japan, Java they just ignored the Chinese. Read the histories Majaphait Empre and Japanese history.]

You have said it, "they just ignored the Chinese". If they could "just ignore the Chinese" at all, how does that prove that the Chinese made them tributary states by imposing its will on them by force? Can you think coherently? You should, at least, leave them out. Pointing out such examples can only weaken you own argument. It seems that you need more than a pair of big glasses-- You need to find some way to improve your brain power.

[Chinese (and India's) also comes down to one thing population and being in control of major river systems. Improvements in agriculture and new crops allowed Island states like England, Philippines, Indonesia, Japan to support populations far larger than in the past. In 1500 Indonesia's population was 6 Million, China, was 180 Million. Now Indonesia's population is 230 Million, China's is 1.3 Million. Philippines was only 1 Million, now its 100 Million. England population was 3-4 Million, vs 15 Million for France, now its 45 vs 60 Million.]

So, what does it mean? What is their cultivatable land compared with that of China? Can't improved crop benefit continental countries as well? How important food crops will be in the new age of technology?

[That is what I am talking about when I talk about dominance. The population of the rest of Asia, outside of India/China now is about 800 Million (excluding Pakistan and Bangladesh). The GDP of the rest of Asia now is greater than the GDP of India and China combined. The population of the rest of Asia during the 1500 was only 1/4 that of China, and ts combined GDP was only 1/8.]

So, what does THAT tell YOU. If they have larger GDP than China and India combined but still cannot dominate over either China or India individually, how does that show their importance?

In an age when transmission of information and knowledge is so fast, I doubt any single nation can now be as dominant in the world as China was in East Asia or Rome was in the Western world.

[Sadly most of our Indian/Chinese posters don't realize this fact. Its sad that teachers (even in the West) mention population figures when they are teaching history. Both Indians and the Chinese have a 15th century view of the rest of Asia.]

As I have said before, the minds of the whites stay in the 19th century. They still think that the Chinese and Indians ought to "know their place" in front of the whites!

[Basically I don;'t trust both the smelly Indians and the Chinese. Both are aggressive powers. The Hindoo Indians want to conquer (by force or other means) the rest of South Asia.]

Wow!! All that the Indians want is to dominate its own traditional cultural sphere and you call them "Aggressive"?? If so, what do you call the Japanese who invaded and occupied Eastern China and almost all of East Asia? And the Europeans, whose invasions and occupations were/are truly global and they are still occupying several CONTINENTS that do NOT belong to them. And, of course, Uncle-- the bastard child of the Europeans-- has, since WWII, openly declares itself of being the "Global Policeman" and its intention to dominate all others in the entire world. I have yet to hear you using this dirty "A-word" on them!!!

By comparsion, the expansions of both the Indians and the Chinese were/are EXTREMELY modest!! And yet Bis is accusing the Indians and the Chinese of being "aggressive" while condoning the actions of the rest and, in particular, that of the whites? Have you no sense of right and wrong?

[ The Chinese hav a big fat chip oin their shoulders, and you have the biggest chip of them all, with your white devil and white bastard talk.]

Yes, I have a rock on my shoulders-- Only when it comes to the whites and the honourary whites. That is good because it give the urge to make fun of people like Bis on the Internet forums. ;-D, ;-D

[ China is using aggressive tactics to setup a buffer zone to prevent future attacks from the sea. And she will stop at nothing to achieve those aims.]

And Uncle is prepared to use aggression to stop China from seeking security. And it will stop at nothing to achieve those aims. The only thing Uncle understands is total domination over others:

"Both the Mongols and Manchus totally conquered Han China and subjected Han China to their rule. If they could rule Han China, Han China can rule over them by the Principle of Reciprocity. The Tibetan had also invaded Han China and sacked Changan. That gives Han China a right to reciprocate."

So by your silly logic, the Europeans can occupy Mongolia ?? As for Korea, China did invade Korean during the Han Dynasty if I am not mistaken, and it was not to protect them from the Japanese. As for Vietnam, China occupied Vietnam for 1000 years. I guess you need to read more Chinese history.

"So, what does THAT tell YOU. If they have larger GDP than China and India combined but still cannot dominate over either China or India individually, how does that show their importance?

In an age when transmission of information and knowledge is so fast, I doubt any single nation can now be as dominant in the world as China was in East Asia or Rome was in the Western world."

Actually technology makes it easier to dominate people. What does the average Japanese farmer in 1300 know about China, very little.

Did I say that those countries dominate China/India, no I did not silly one. I said China/India can;'t dominate them like they did in the past, largely because of a shift in economics/population. Please like Indonesia/Thailand are part of the Indosphere, but now every one in those countries look on India. Its the same with South Koreans/Japanese, they look down on Chinese people. Actually, the South Koreans are the worst.

"Wow!! All that the Indians want is to dominate its own traditional cultural sphere and you call them "Aggressive"?? If so, what do you call the Japanese who invaded and occupied Eastern China and almost all of East Asia? And the Europeans, whose invasions and occupations were/are truly global and they are still occupying several CONTINENTS that do NOT belong to them. And, of course, Uncle-- the bastard child of the Europeans-- has, since WWII, openly declares itself of being the "Global Policeman" and its intention to dominate all others in the entire world. I have yet to hear you using this dirty "A-word" on them!!!

By comparsion, the expansions of both the Indians and the Chinese were/are EXTREMELY modest!! And yet Bis is accusing the Indians and the Chinese of being "aggressive" while condoning the actions of the rest and, in particular, that of the whites? Have you no sense of right and wrong?"

There you go again with your talk about white people etc. The difference, is those other countries don't want to be part of India, and they are willing blow up India (ie Pakistan).

"Both the Mongols and Manchus totally conquered Han China and subjected Han China to their rule. If they could rule Han China, Han China can rule over them by the Principle of Reciprocity. The Tibetan had also invaded Han China and sacked Changan. That gives Han China a right to reciprocate."

So by your silly logic, the Europeans can occupy Mongolia ?? As for Korea, China did invade Korean during the Han Dynasty if I am not mistaken, and it was not to protect them from the Japanese. As for Vietnam, China occupied Vietnam for 1000 years. I guess you need to read more Chinese history.

"So, what does THAT tell YOU. If they have larger GDP than China and India combined but still cannot dominate over either China or India individually, how does that show their importance?

In an age when transmission of information and knowledge is so fast, I doubt any single nation can now be as dominant in the world as China was in East Asia or Rome was in the Western world."

Actually technology makes it easier to dominate people. What does the average Japanese farmer in 1300 know about China, very little.

Did I say that those countries dominate China/India, no I did not silly one. I said China/India can;'t dominate them like they did in the past, largely because of a shift in economics/population. Please like Indonesia/Thailand are part of the Indosphere, but now every one in those countries look on India. Its the same with South Koreans/Japanese, they look down on Chinese people. Actually, the South Koreans are the worst.

"Wow!! All that the Indians want is to dominate its own traditional cultural sphere and you call them "Aggressive"?? If so, what do you call the Japanese who invaded and occupied Eastern China and almost all of East Asia? And the Europeans, whose invasions and occupations were/are truly global and they are still occupying several CONTINENTS that do NOT belong to them. And, of course, Uncle-- the bastard child of the Europeans-- has, since WWII, openly declares itself of being the "Global Policeman" and its intention to dominate all others in the entire world. I have yet to hear you using this dirty "A-word" on them!!!

By comparsion, the expansions of both the Indians and the Chinese were/are EXTREMELY modest!! And yet Bis is accusing the Indians and the Chinese of being "aggressive" while condoning the actions of the rest and, in particular, that of the whites? Have you no sense of right and wrong?"

There you go again with your talk about white people etc. The difference, is those other countries don't want to be part of India, and they are willing blow up India (ie Pakistan).

"Actually technology makes it easier to dominate people. What does the average Japanese farmer in 1300 know about China, very little."

But the "transmission" of technology, or the equalizer of technology, makes it difficult for any group of people to dominate another.

It's unlikely that any nation would ever achieve the technological superiority that Rome had over the barbarians or Europeans had over the native Americans.

Sure you have some pariah states in the Middle East and Africa and a few other small pockets where technology is crappy, because apparently their leaders don't bother to look up even Wikipedia or iTunes U to help them govern, but these territories are a slim minority today and rapidly disappearing.

I agree, but just to add the barbarians never even came close to Roman organization and training. Even during 400 AD when the Western Roman Empire was bankrupt mostly due to rampant corruption its armies still outclassed everyone else.

Rome fell mostly because the empire disintegrated, and not because other people caught up. You need to go many centuries after Rome to find a civilization in Christian Europe with comparable technology.

Similarly the Native Americans never caught up with European guns and cannons. Sure diseases killed the most, but even when the Natives were healthy, unless they severely outnumbered and out-tactic the Europeans like at the Battle of Little Big Horn, had no chance.

"Both the Mongols and Manchus totally conquered Han China and subjected Han China to their rule. If they could rule Han China, Han China can rule over them by the Principle of Reciprocity. The Tibetan had also invaded Han China and sacked Changan. That gives Han China a right to reciprocate."

So by your silly logic, the Europeans can occupy Mongolia ??]

It is no silly logic. The Europeans are morally justified to occupy Mongolia and claim that is only "Retaliation in Kind". At least, the Russians did that in effect and dominated the State of Mongolia, which they created, for some decades.

My question is: If one cannot use the Principle of Reciprocity in such situation, then on what principle do the whites derive their right to occupy the Americas, Australia, etc?

[ As for Korea, China did invade Korean during the Han Dynasty if I am not mistaken, and it was not to protect them from the Japanese. As for Vietnam, China occupied Vietnam for 1000 years. I guess you need to read more Chinese history.]

Yes, China did have wars with its neighbours-- Like almost all other countries in the world. The fact that both Korea and Vietnam are still there today shows that they do have the power to make their own choices.

["So, what does THAT tell YOU. If they have larger GDP than China and India combined but still cannot dominate over either China or India individually, how does that show their importance?

In an age when transmission of information and knowledge is so fast, I doubt any single nation can now be as dominant in the world as China was in East Asia or Rome was in the Western world."

Actually technology makes it easier to dominate people. What does the average Japanese farmer in 1300 know about China, very little. ]

I don't know what you are trying to say. But 1 Kyat Drone has given a proper reply to you.

[Did I say that those countries dominate China/India, no I did not silly one. I said China/India can;'t dominate them like they did in the past, largely because of a shift in economics/population. Please like Indonesia/Thailand are part of the Indosphere, but now every one in those countries look on India. Its the same with South Koreans/Japanese, they look down on Chinese people. Actually, the South Koreans are the worst.]

So WHAT!!! Countries/societies rise and fall, and at different times. It bothers me not one bit if some people choose to have the mentality of the Hare-- As long as the Chinese continue to live their life in the spirit of the Tortoise.

["Wow!! All that the Indians want is to dominate its own traditional cultural sphere and you call them "Aggressive"?? If so, what do you call the Japanese who invaded and occupied Eastern China and almost all of East Asia? And the Europeans, whose invasions and occupations were/are truly global and they are still occupying several CONTINENTS that do NOT belong to them. And, of course, Uncle-- the bastard child of the Europeans-- has, since WWII, openly declares itself of being the "Global Policeman" and its intention to dominate all others in the entire world. I have yet to hear you using this dirty "A-word" on them!!!

By comparison, the expansions of both the Indians and the Chinese were/are EXTREMELY modest!! And yet Bis is accusing the Indians and the Chinese of being "aggressive" while condoning the actions of the rest and, in particular, that of the whites? Have you no sense of right and wrong?"

There you go again with your talk about white people etc. The difference, is those other countries don't want to be part of India, and they are willing blow up India (ie Pakistan).]

Why NOT???

The true natives of the Americas, Australia, etc did not want their lands to become parts of whites dominated territories either but what choice did they have? Besides, I've never heard that India wants to incorporate neighbouring countries into India. It seems to me that all India wants is that the other South Asian states look to it for leadership. (For example, I doubt India wants to incorporate Bangladesh. That could allow the Islamic horde to endanger Hinduism in India itself.) That is just a bit of regional hegemony rather than colonialism or expansionism. In any case, even its hegemony is far far smaller than Uncle's global hegemony. Have you ever heard of the Monroe doctrine? Even Vietnam, a much smaller country than India, tried to dominate all of Indo-China after the Vietnam War-- Until its effort was defeated by the combined effort of Uncle, China and the Khmer Rouge. So, why single out India, may I ask?